| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database file compatability |
| Date: | 2005-09-28 03:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1223.1127878072@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> I think all ALIGNOF macros should be checked.
There are no platforms for which ALIGNOF_SHORT is different from 2.
I don't think there are any platforms we care about where ALIGNOF_INT
is different from 4. The cases of interest are ALIGNOF_DOUBLE,
ALIGNOF_LONG, ALIGNOF_LONG_LONG_INT (note that MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is
just the largest of these). In practice "long int" is the same type
as either "int" or "long long int", so ALIGNOF_LONG isn't a distinct
case either. What it comes down to is that MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is
sufficient to tell the difference between the platforms we need to
deal with. If you have a counterexample, tell us about it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-28 03:48:56 | Re: Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-09-28 03:22:12 | Re: State of support for back PG branches |